It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An analysis of the DSC data in the Herrit-Jones paper

page: 11
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


As long as the arguments and reasoning are sound any media is good enough. The fact that the three points above that pteridine brought up are not addressed to any satisfaction point in the direction that this is the case. Neither of Jones tests proof thermite. There are easy and cheap tests that do proof thermite. Why is he not doing those experiments? Can you address that specific question? Does it really not bother you?




posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Cassius666
 


As long as the arguments and reasoning are sound any media is good enough.


Wow really? Since when?

What makes you think he did not do the necessary tests to prove thermite?
edit on 23-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


The main reason is because almost no expert in that field accepts his conclusions. The ones that responded to his work can all produce a list of (methodological) flaws. I can perfectly follow the reasoning behind this critique, so I have no reason to think they are wrong.

But even if they are wrong, why doesn't Jones do the experiments? His goal is the convince people his hypothesis is correct, agreed? Doing those experiments convinces people, agreed? So why not do those experiments?



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I have confidence that jones Herrit and everybody else who was involved know what they were doing. If experts come forward and debunk his work, then the flaws of his work have been laid bare. I am just saying for me it takes more than conspiracyguy on conspiracyboard to debunk a paper published in a peer reviewed journal.

If you have other thoughts on the subject, may your happy thoughts make you happy.
edit on 23-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I have confidence that jones Herrit and everybody else who was involved know what they were doing. If experts come forward and debunk his work, then the flaws of his work have been laid bare. I am just saying for me it takes more than conspiracyguy on conspiracyboard to debunk a paper published in a peer reviewed journal.

If you have other thoughts on the subject, may your happy thoughts make you happy


Your confidence seems to be misplaced. The so called "peer review" was flawed enough to cause resignation of at least one editor, in protest. This casts doubt on the claim that the publication was reviewed by disinterested scientfic peers. One who claimed to be a reviewer is part of Jones cabal. Had this paper gone through an actual peer review, it would not have been published as written.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Once again you include Tillotson's paper for no apparent reason. His super thermite returned only 40% of the theoretical energy available but the technology available when he wrote it was still being developed. Is it that you cannot defend Jones' work and need another paper as a distraction?

You have failed to address the thread topic.

I conclude that you admit that Jones DSC experiment, in air, has not proved thermite.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Many academics have had their careers terminated because they were linked to the 911 truth movement. So this casts doubt on the motives for his resignation. This is just one more detail 911 deniers choose to ignore. If an professor challenging the official story in 2001 is sacked over a letter signed by no less than 63 senators demanding he be freed of his duties, then thats going to have an impact on academia. Not to mention Jones lost his tenure over the paper. Of course your amazing powers of selective perception allow you to ignore this fact. None of those who resigned debunked the paper or found fault with it in any way.

However that does not mean its undebunkable, it will just take more than half a page. All that is left to do is wait and see. If there is fault with the paper one of his peers will find it.

If you want to believe the paper did not prove thermite, then may your happy thoughts make you happy.
edit on 23-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Why do you still have this confidence, while experts have already pointed out the errors? And not just anonymous people, also for example semi-truther Denis Rancourt. He is currently in debate with Jones, and I see today there was a post stating that Jones agreed to provide more data. We will see what will come from that.

But seriously, what do you need in order to start doubting his work? Realize that no one will ever write a rebuttal paper, as no one thinks it is worth it. Also realize that if most experts agreed with his conclusions, there would be a lot more commotion. Or do you think that all those experts are part of the conspiracy?



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Jones isnt the only one. So in your opinion the reason that nobody is supporting the NIST report and refuting what the many experts have to say about it, is because nobody thinks its worth the effort? Why would it take for me to refute his paper, well one of his peers pointing out the flaws to the team who composed it for example. And Herrit and Jones and their team werent the only ones either.

I dont quite see why I should give more credibility to the 200 people who composed the NIST report, over the many thousands of people who challenged it and point out its flaws. If the NIST report is defensible, why does nobody defend it?

As for the Herrit Jones paper I would say if it is debunkable, why does nobody debunk it, but it is a recent publication, so in that case we will have to wait and see. You on the other hand firmly believe in the NIST report or any version of it, no matter what anybody says, while I merely say, its going to take more than conspiracyguy to debunk that paper.
edit on 23-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Jones isnt the only one. So in your opinion the reason that nobody is supporting the NIST report and refuting what the many experts have to say about it, is because nobody thinks its worth the effort? Why would it take for me to refute his paper, well one of his peers pointing out the flaws to the team who composed it for example. And Herrit and Jones and their team werent the only ones either.

I dont quite see why I should give more credibility to the 200 people who composed the NIST report, over the many thousands of people who challenged it and point out its flaws. If the NIST report is defensible, why does nobody defend it?


What does the NIST report has to do with Jones paper? Is the validity of the NIST reports in any way going to influence the quality of Jones work? No. I don't see the NIST report as a bible or something, I think nobody does. If there are faults in it, those should be exposed.


As for the Herrit Jones paper I would say if it is debunkable, why does nobody debunk it, but it is a recent publication, so in that case we will have to wait and see. You on the other hand firmly believe in the NIST report or any version of it, no matter what anybody says, while I merely say, its going to take more than conspiracyguy to debunk that paper.
edit on 23-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


I do not believe the NIST report firmly, like I already told you. I accept there may be flaws in it. Much unlike your attitude towards Jones paper. You are actually accusing me of something you are doing yourself.

The paper is "debunked". Didn't you read the link I gave you where a whole list of errors was summed up? Who do you just ignore that as if it doesn't exists? And this is not the only expert that has spoken out. Why do you think that Jones agreed too provide additional data? Is it because all of the scientific community agrees with his conclusion? If so why would he provide more data? Or is it because almost nobody agrees? What do you think?



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


You linked me to the blog of physicist Rancourt. Here is another of this blogs. climateguy.blogspot.com...

Better get ready for that ice age, hmmm? Looks like he not only believes in the official conspiracy theory, but he also believes in the global warming is a hoax theory, which does not surprise me. Nutters who believe in one conspiracy theory usually believe in a whole set of them. I would be curious what he did in his field of expertise, which is physics, not chemestry although, with just an rudimentary education on both, I say parallels can be found.

As for now Jones Herrit and many many others have found evidence of thermite. I am not saying that is conclusive. But we will have to wait and see what the reaction in academia is and its a bit soon at this point. Maybe your prayers have been heard and somebody is working on what you hope to see. But for now you will have to wait and see.
edit on 23-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by -PLB-
 


You linked me to the blog of physicist Rancourt. Here is another of this blogs. climateguy.blogspot.com...

Better get ready for that ice age, hmmm? Looks like he not only believes in the official conspiracy theory, but he also believes in the global warming is a hoax theory, which does not surprise me. Nutters who believe in one conspiracy theory usually believe in a whole set of them. I would be curious what he did in his field of expertise, which is physics, not chemestry although, with just an rudimentary education on both, I say parallels can be found.


You may be right, he also believes that WTC 7 was brought down by CD. Anyway, it is typical that you attack his character, and ignore the issues he brings up, which seem to be at least partly acknowledged by Jones.


As for now Jones Herrit and many many others have found evidence of thermite. I am not saying that is conclusive. But we will have to wait and see what the reaction in academia is and its a bit soon at this point. Maybe your prayers have been heard and somebody is working on what you hope to see. But for now you will have to wait and see.
edit on 23-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


This is a first step, acknowledging his work is not conclusive.
Now ask yourself what should be done in order to make it conclusive. And you will understand the critics.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I am sorry, but on something as important like 911 id like to get the input of level headed people. Maybe it turns out that global warming isnt a hoax after all, but there are more than enough PH.Ds who do not associate with fringe groups taking on the matter.

No you misunderstood me. I am in no position to say if it is conclusive or not and neither are you. I said we will have to wait and see if people who are in a position to do so find fault with the paper or not. Or fault with the work of the other Ph.Ds who said they found evidence of thermite.

At any rate its funny how a flimsy explanation is good enough to uphold the official conspiracy theory. Everything points torwards controlled demolition, so far I have seen nothing that can refute that, other than a freak chance of fires and damage causing the collapse.
edit on 23-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
I am sorry, but on something as important like 911 id like to get the input of level headed people. Maybe it turns out that global warming isnt a hoax after all, but there are more than enough PH.Ds who do not associate with fringe groups taking on the matter.

No you misunderstood me. I am in no position to say if it is conclusive or not and neither are you. I said we will have to wait and see if people who are in a position to do so find fault with the paper or not. Or fault with the work of the other Ph.Ds who said they found evidence of thermite.


Already happenend, but you aren't listening. You don't want to listen, as it does not fit your world view. Confirmation bias, remeber.


At any rate its funny how a flimsy explanation is good enough to uphold the official conspiracy theory. Everything points torwards controlled demolition, so far I have seen nothing that can refute that, other than a freak chance of fires and damage causing the collapse.


Which flimsy explanation are you talking about? What evidence of CD are you talking about? We went over this in another thread remember. You could not come with a single piece of scientific work in favor of CD. So we are left with "some guy on a forum", the people you don't want to listen to, remember. Yet when the subject is CD, your standards completely change, 180 degrees.
edit on 23-12-2010 by -PLB- because: fix quote



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


No, its the other way around. It is your standards which change 180 degrees when it comes to defending the official conspiracy theory. You accuse me of being the very thing you are, including a conspiracy theorist. I think there is a word for that, but I would have to look it up. At any rate you might want to get some help.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


The resignation of the Bentham editor did not have to do with the topic of the paper, it had to do with the process of publication. Editors like to....edit. They have control over the quality of the journal and their reputations depend on that quality. Some are tyrants; some less so but they all demand control as it is their name on the masthead. What happens when someone circumvents the editor and a paper that has no scientific merit is published? The editor resigns to show displeasure in someone slipping a paper past his desk and to show his peers that he has not reviewed and approved the paper for publication in his journal.
In Jones case, it was not his politics but lack of responsible scientific investigation and continued grandstanding. The man just needs attention. He became an embarrassment to the university and they 'retired' him. He is easily replaced on the faculty and it was time for him to retire..

If you want to believe the paper proved thermite, then may your happy thoughts make you happy.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Oh pteridine if Herrit Jones and their team only were the only ones. If only if only. So I can go with the paper many other chemists who came forward or conspiracyguy on ATS board. So hard to choose
. We will see if it will be debunked by one or more of his peers, like a fellow chemist, or not. But if you think you are in a position to debunk the paper, may your happy thoughts make you happy. At any rate I still recommend you to take your discussion someplace where you find people qualified to judge what you claim.

And no it does not make me happy at all that according to NUMEROUS chemists there is clear evidence for a controlled demolition and the us goverment is at the very least covering up this fact.
edit on 23-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by pteridine
 


Oh pteridine if Herrit Jones and their team only were the only ones. If only if only. So I can go with the paper many other chemists who came forward or conspiracyguy on ATS board. So hard to choose
. We will see if it will be debunked by one or more of his peers, like a fellow chemist, or not. But if you think you are in a position to debunk the paper, may your happy thoughts make you happy. At any rate I still recommend you to take your discussion someplace where you find people qualified to judge what you claim.

And no it does not make me happy at all that according to NUMEROUS chemists there is clear evidence for a
controlled demolition and the us goverment is at the very least covering up this fact.


Harrit Jones and their extended family are generally the only ones. Jones, of course, is not a chemist. Harrit may claim so, but many find him lacking.
I have worked to keep my criticisms understandable to all; it is only those who have predetermined that thermite was present that cannot understand. Jones entire theory, that the paint did it, is such a stretch that I recommended those true believers go with the DEW theory as it has a better chance of being true.
For NUMEROUS [3-6?] chemists to claim CD, they would have to have some chemical evidence. None brought forward has ever withstood critical review. I believe that no open government is capable of planning, executing, and covering up such an event.
As a final note, think about how long it takes for Cole's thermate to burn through a beam. Then watch the video of collapse and see if there was time for the charges to ignite before the collapse passed them by. Anything but HE takes too long to effect a cut.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Look I am sure you think you know what you talk about. So far you did not present a good case, as far as I can tell. I can be the judge and say turbofan wins, but I am in no position to do so. Hey I can say you won too. You want that? Pteridine wins. There did that make you happy? You want to debunk Herrit Jones paper? Go through the proper channels. You might as well ask me to be a ref on American football, a sport of which I know that it is popular across the atlantic.

I have to disagree on planning and executing, but I agree that thus far covering up an operation on that scale did not quite work out.
edit on 23-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by pteridine
 


Look I am sure you think you know what you talk about. So far you did not present a good case, as far as I can tell. I can be the judge and say turbofan wins, but I am in no position to do so. Hey I can say you won too. You want that? Pteridine wins. There did that make you happy? You want to debunk Herrit Jones paper? Go through the proper channels. You might as well ask me to be a ref on American football, a sport of which I know that it is popular across the atlantic.


I was not asking for you to be a ref and have no vested interest in your position. It is apparent that you desire a conspiracy that includes CD and want the US Government to be actively involved.
'Proper channels' sounds like an ex-Soviet block term. If parts of Jones paper are used as some sort of evidence on ATS then they are open to question on ATS. The paper was published on the internet and never peer reviewed so I considered the internet a proper channel to review it.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join